Our nation has gone to war. Pray for our fighting men, pray for their families, and pray for the people of the Middle East. We must support our soldiers, but we have an obligation to question the motives of the officials who launched the conflict. Dr. Davidson Loehr delivered a sermon on September 29, 2002 in which he stated:

"I want to try and make a kind of sense of our coming wars . . . the Bush administration is not making it up as they go along, but following a plan. In some ways, we've known
about this plan since his father was president. Then, it was called the 'New World
Order.' The Sunday Herald of Glasgow, Scotland recently published a story about an
important sketch of the military dimensions of this plan. . . ."
Rev. Davidson Loehr: September 29, 2002 [1]

"A secret blueprint for U.S. global domination reveals that President Bush and his
cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure regime change even
before he took power in January 2001."
Ted Koppel: Nightline, March 5, 2003 [2]

"It has been called a secret blueprint for U.S. global domination. . . . A small group of
people with a plan to remove Saddam Hussein long before George W. Bush was elected
president. . . . And 9/11 provided the opportunity to set it in motion."
Ted Koppel: Nightline, March 5, 2003 [3]

"Not since Mein Kampf has a geopolitical punch been so blatantly telegraphed
years ahead of the blow."
Ted Koppel: Nightline, March 5, 2003 [4]

Five years before President Bush became president, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and twenty-one other prominent Republicans organized Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their goal was to depose Saddam Hussein, station American troops throughout the world, and establish "an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." They wanted: "American armed forces stationed abroad and on rotational deployments around the world. . . (as) the cavalry on the new American frontier." [5]

June 3, 1997: PNAC published a Statement of Principles which states:

"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent
power . . . we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and
extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today.
But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century, and
to ensure our security and our greatness in the next." [6]

January 26, 1998: PNAC sent a letter to President Clinton:

"We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq
is not succeeding . . . . The policy of 'containment' of Saddam Hussein has been steadily
eroding over the past several months. . . . Given the magnitude of the threat, the current
policy . . . is dangerously inadequate. . . . In the long term, it means removing Saddam
Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American
foreign policy." [7]

September 2000: PNAC published Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century:

". . . the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf
regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends
the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. . . .

American armed forces stationed abroad and on rotational deployments around the
world . . . are the cavalry on the new American frontier."

"Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S.
national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. . . . Further, the
process of transformation . . . is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and
catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." [8]

September 11, 2001: Nineteen terrorists provided a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

"Only 30 hours after the attack, Donald Rumsfeld, a charter member of PNAC,
asked President Bush to "go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda." [9]

"At the Pentagon . . . Wolfowitz, for the first time, alluded to that broader goal. 'It will be
a campaign, not a single action. And we're gonna keep after these people and the people
who support them until this stops. It has to be treated that way.'" [10]

Donald Rumsfeld told a group of reporters that the coming conflict:

". . . undoubtedly will prove to be a lot more like a cold war than a hot war.
If you think about it, in the cold war it took 50 years, plus or minus." [11]

September 14, 2001: Former Senator Gary Hart addressed an emergency session of the Council on Foreign Relations; he stated:

"There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster . . . to carry
out what his father - a phrase his father used I think only once, and it hasn't been used
since - and that is a new world order." [12]

September 15, 2001: President Bush discussed the coming war:

"You will be asked for your patience; for, the conflict will not be short. You will be
asked for resolve; for, the conflict will not be easy. You will be asked for your strength,
because the course to victory may be long." [13]

September 17, 2001: The New York Times reports:

"On September 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, President Bush signed a 21/2-page document marked 'TOP SECRET' that
outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against
terrorism.

Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning
military options for an invasion of Iraq. . . ." [14]

September 20, 2001: President Bush stated:

"All of this was brought on us in a single day . . . and night fell on a different
world . . . a world in which freedom itself is under attack." [15]

Project for the New American Century sent a letter to President Bush:

"We write to endorse your admirable commitment to 'lead the world to victory' in the war
against terrorism . . . . We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the
current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his
network of associates. . . . We agree with Secretary of State Powell's recent statement
that Saddam Hussein 'is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth' . . . even if
evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication
of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein
from power in Iraq." [16]

January 23, 2003: Project for the New American Century sent another letter to President Bush:

"We write to endorse the bold new course you have charted for American national security strategy . . . . American strength is key to building the new world you have envisioned.
The victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan was an essential first step in stabilizing that
chaotic country . . . . The international community and an overwhelming military coalition
are now ready to end the threat of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. . . . Removing
Saddam is but the first step toward reconstructing a decent government in Iraq and
carrying out your strategic vision for the Middle East. Other rogue states remain a major
problem. Even as we deploy forces for war against Iraq, North Korea has abrogated its
agreement to terminate its nuclear weapons development and threatens war. . . . The
third member of the 'axis of evil,' Iran, has likewise stepped up its nuclear efforts." [17]

February 15, 2003:

"Rallies erupted in dozens of cities on five continents, from Canberra, Australia, to Oslo,
Norway, and from Cape Town, South Africa, to Damascus, Syria. But the largest protests
were in London, Rome, Berlin and Paris. . . . In the United States thousands opposed to a
war staged rallies Saturday in New York, Southern California, Detroit, Miami, Chicago and
other communities. . . . The protests in Europe included some of the largest anti-war events
in decades. . . . At least 1 million turned out in Britain. . . . Close to 1 million marched in Italy and at least 2 million filled the streets in Spain. . . . Despite rain, wind and near-
freezing temperatures, German police said a gathering of about 500,000 in Berlin marked
the largest rally since World War II." [18]

March 1, 2003: The New York Times reports:

"As opposition to war in Iraq stiffened in the United Nations Security Council, the Bush
administration today set a new standard for avoiding war that could be out of reach for
Saddam Hussein and, perhaps, the world body. That appeared to be the unmistakable
message conveyed by the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, when he said President
Bush would be satisfied only with Iraq's complete disarmament and the departure of
Saddam Hussein into exile." [19]

Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant who tortures his enemies, kills his opponents, and murdered two of his sons-in-law, yet U.S. officials supported his regime during the 1980s and let the Iraqis purchase biological and chemical agents from American companies. Our State Department supported Saddam after he used poisoned gas on Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq wars, gave Iraq $5 billion in agricultural credits, and let them borrow an additional $5 billion from an American bank shortly before the Gulf War. Why? [20, 21]

Robert Baer was the senior CIA case officer in Northern Iraq (Kurdistan) in 1995. In his book, See No Evil, he reveals U.S. officials knew Iraq was violating the UN embargo, and selling oil to Turkey and Jordan, but didn't intervene. Why? [22] An Iraqi general contacted Robert Baer and asked him if the U.S. would help the Iraqi military depose Saddam. The general asked:

"Does the U.S. want Saddam to remain in power?"

". . . The general was alluding to a vintage conspiracy theory . . . the myth that the U.S. secretly kept Saddam in power. I'd heard it from just about every Iraqi I'd met. Some
even believed Saddam was a paid CIA agent. The theory dovetailed nicely with the
Iraqi belief that dark, unseen forces ran the world and history could be reduced to a
series of conspiracies, interconnected by an overarching design know to only a few . . .
that a foreign policy of any consequence had to be scripted according to a secret plot.
As one theory went, Saddam and the U.S. had struck a secret agreement in 1980 for
Iraq to invade Iran . . . to take Iran down a peg. Then, when Iraq emerged from that
war as a menacing giant in the Gulf, the U.S. conspired with Kuwait to lure Iraq into
invading Kuwait only so the U.S. could smash Iraq's army. . . . The theory explained
a lot of otherwise inexplicable mysteries, such as why the U.S. Army didn't hunt down
Saddam at the end of the Gulf War, and even permitted him to put up his helicopters
so he could crush the popular insurrections. It explained why the U.S. allowed
Saddam to smuggle oil through countries allied with the U.S., like Turkey and Jordan.
It also explained why, after Saddam's attempted assassination of ex-president George
Bush . . . in 1993, President Bill Clinton fired a couple of cruise missiles into empty
buildings in Baghdad rather than go after Saddam. The theory got still nuttier in 1993
when the son of a former Iraqi prime minister . . . started the rumor that the CIA had
deliberately betrayed a coup against Saddam, even giving him the list of plotters." [23]

Robert Baer ridiculed that concept, but noted:

"In 1995, the National Security Council intentionally aborted a military coup d'etat
against Saddam Hussein, forgoing the last opportunity to get rid of him." [24]

He also wrote:

"The other day a reporter friend told me that one of the highest-ranking CIA officials
had said to him, off the record, that when the dust finally clears, Americans will see
that September 11 was a triumph for the intelligence community, not a failure." [25]

Robert Baer had to submit his manuscript to the CIA before it was published. Is that why he ridiculed the concept that U.S. officials kept Saddam Hussein in power? [26] Do "dark, unseen forces rule the world?" Is the United States being propelled into World War III?

Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Peter Rodman, Zalmay Khalilizad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, and a number of other PNAC members hold key positions in the Bush administration. [27] Many of them are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations which is a front group for Cecil Rhodes' secret society. [28] Rhodes wanted Great Britain and the United States to rule the world. That is PNAC's goal. [29] I've reproduced part of PNAC's Statement of Principles. The complete text is available at: www.newamericancentury.org.

"American foreign and defense policy is adrift. . . . We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent
power. . . . America faces opportunity and a challenge. Does the United States have the
vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the
resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. . . . Cuts in
foreign affairs and defense spending . . . are making it increasingly difficult to sustain
American influence around the world. . . . We seem to have forgotten the essential
elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to
meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully
promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United
States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot
safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and
the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental
interests. . . . The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of
American leadership. . . .

We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending
an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But
it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to
ensure our security and our greatness in the next." [30]

Where did the term "New World Order" originate? Many people think it originated with the President's father, but they are mistaken. Tom Carney wrote about the NWO in the January edition of Thoughtline, published by the Arcana Workshops:

"I have two points I want to make this evening. One is about The New World Order. The
second is about Essential Divinity. Together these will add up to the realization that a truly
NEW World Order will eventually result in One World for One Humanity. First the New
World Order. As far as I know, this phrase was coined by Alice Bailey and D.K. D.K.'s
initial use of the term appears in a discussion of the work of the New Group of World
Servers in Esoteric Psychology II, first printed in 1942. . . . The first time I ever heard or
saw this term used outside of these books was not in an esoteric paper or at a conference of
the esoteric community. It was by the elected President Bush . . . he talked at length about
the creation of A New World Order. . . . While we are still very far from the New World
Order envisioned by the Plan, we have made some very notable progress in some areas like
politics and education." [31]

D.K. channeled 20 books through Alice Bailey; she coined the phrase "New World Order." D.K., (Djwhal Khul) was a demonic spirit. [32] The Council on Foreign Relations and Project for the New American Century want the Anglo-American Establishment to control the world. The French, the Germans, and the Russians want the UN to control the world. Which group will succeed? Neither. We are witnessing an example of Hegelian dialectic, two forces aligned against one another. One is thesis, the other antithesis. The conflict will produce a synthesis; in this case, the loss of national sovereignty and the end of freedom. What can you do? Help me inform the American people. Radio Liberty is now available on the Genesis Network weekdays from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. PST (6:00 - 8:00 p.m. EST). Call the manager of your local radio station and ask him to carry our programs. Contact me if he is interested.

If you are thinking about making preparations, Radio Liberty is offering Berkey water filters, Ready Reserve Food, and several other items at www.radioliberty.com, or call for a catalog at 800-544-8927.

Pray the war will be short, and remember:

"Back of all that foes have plotted,
Back of all that Saints have planned,
Back of schemes by men or demons
Moves a higher, hidden hand. . . .
Mysteries which hurt and baffle,
Past our power to understand
In the end are turned to blessing
By the Sovereign Hidden Hand.

Though the cause of evil prosper
Yet 'tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold
And upon the throne be wrong.
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow,
Keeping watch above his own. [33]